Y from yanar...@hotmail.com posted Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:19:14 -0700 (PDT)
> On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Okt, 00:27, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > An event with start and end manifest time and is proof of time
> > existence, of course time is motion at some metalevel time can not
> > exist outside motion and causal logic, no more then matter can exist
> > without energy.
> Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning and
> an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion from
> the beginning to the end of an event.
Events are not necesserily related to motion,
as there are events of state changes.
> In terms of measurement, I could
> arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be talking
> with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said to date
> regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
> paragraph.
> -y
-- Poutnik
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster, if combined
with no quoting by some GG users.
> On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Matter is the ultimate source of time, the movement of matter and the oscillating waves
> > emanating from spinning matter.
> Source of time ? So not only is time natural stuff to you, it has a
> source ?
> You will find that time is more or less a reference system. This is in
> contrast to the idea that time is a natural part of the universe. When
> we refer to time, we refer to this reference system. When we refer to
> time, we are not referring to any part of the universe, other than the
> reference system which is used to represent motion, as well as make
> motion mathematical.
> -y
No time is oscillating and moving matter and the waves equipped with
the oscillations or movement, this is not hard to understand.
> On 4 Okt, 14:23, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Matter is the ultimate source of time, the movement of matter and the oscillating waves
> > > emanating from spinning matter.
> > Source of time ? So not only is time natural stuff to you, it has a
> > source ?
> > You will find that time is more or less a reference system. This is in
> > contrast to the idea that time is a natural part of the universe. When
> > we refer to time, we refer to this reference system. When we refer to
> > time, we are not referring to any part of the universe, other than the
> > reference system which is used to represent motion, as well as make
> > motion mathematical.
> > -y
> No time is oscillating and moving matter and the waves equipped with
> the oscillations or movement, this is not hard to understand.
The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
wit.
> The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> wit.
Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
On Oct 7, 12:19 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 3:18 AM, Y wrote:
> > The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> > wit.
> Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
> argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
> with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
On Oct 7, 12:19 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 3:18 AM, Y wrote:
> > The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> > wit.
> Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
> argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
> with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
mass ?
> On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Okt, 00:27, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > An event with start and end manifest time and is proof of time
> > existence, of course time is motion at some metalevel time can not
> > exist outside motion and causal logic, no more then matter can exist
> > without energy.
> Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning
> and an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion
> from the beginning to the end of an event.
The stuff between is oscillation and motion, on either the observer
side or on the event side.
> In terms of measurement, I
> could arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be
> talking with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said
> to date regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
> paragraph.
There possibly could be a type of oscillation that is not affected by
either inertial or gravitation, that could be used for universal time.
> On Oct 7, 12:19 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 10/6/2012 3:18 AM, Y wrote:
> > > The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> > > wit.
> > Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
> > argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
> > with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> mass ?
> -y
Taking literally, only force can start moving things
and it does not have mass. :-)
Sure, force is done by mass objects, but not necessarily
with rest mass, as in case of photons.
Once moving, things are moving themselves
and there is nothing what moves them.
-- Poutnik
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
> On Oct 6, 6:17 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4 Okt, 14:23, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Matter is the ultimate source of time, the movement of matter and the oscillating waves
> > > > emanating from spinning matter.
> > > Source of time ? So not only is time natural stuff to you, it has a
> > > source ?
> > > You will find that time is more or less a reference system. This is in
> > > contrast to the idea that time is a natural part of the universe. When
> > > we refer to time, we refer to this reference system. When we refer to
> > > time, we are not referring to any part of the universe, other than the
> > > reference system which is used to represent motion, as well as make
> > > motion mathematical.
> > > -y
> > No time is oscillating and moving matter and the waves equipped with
> > the oscillations or movement, this is not hard to understand.
> The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> wit.
> -y
My english a bit screwed up, oscillating and moving matter and the
waves emanating from oscillating and moving matter is time.
> Y from yanar...@hotmail.com
> posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 22:46:16 -0700 (PDT)
> > On Oct 7, 12:19 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 10/6/2012 3:18 AM, Y wrote:
> > > > The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
> > > > wit.
> > > Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
> > > argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
> > > with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
> > Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> > mass ?
> > -y
> Taking literally, only force can start moving things
> and it does not have mass. :-)
JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com
posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 22:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
> On 4 Okt, 14:19, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> > end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning
> > and an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion
> > from the beginning to the end of an event.
If end and beginning of the event have the same space coordinates,
and if these are kept constant also during the event,
then there is no motion.
Motion is by definition related to change of space coordinates.
> The stuff between is oscillation and motion, on either the observer
> side or on the event side.
> > In terms of measurement, I
> > could arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be
> > talking with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said
> > to date regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
> > paragraph.
> There possibly could be a type of oscillation that is not affected by
> either inertial or gravitation, that could be used for universal time.
> > -y
-- Poutnik
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> mass ?
Shine an intense light beam on a small, very low-mass object. The object will move, but light has no mass.
Do not confuse this with the cheap radiometers sold in museum
shops. They have insufficient vacuum and it is differential
heating of the air inside that makes them rotate. But a radiometer
with good vacuum does rotate properly due to the momentum
transferred to its blades by the light.
On Oct 8, 1:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 10/7/12 10/7/12 12:46 AM, Y wrote:
> > Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> > mass ?
> Shine an intense light beam on a small, very low-mass object. The object will
> move, but light has no mass.
> Do not confuse this with the cheap radiometers sold in museum
> shops. They have insufficient vacuum and it is differential
> heating of the air inside that makes them rotate. But a radiometer
> with good vacuum does rotate properly due to the momentum
> transferred to its blades by the light.
> On Oct 8, 1:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/12 10/7/12 12:46 AM, Y wrote:
>>> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
>>> mass ?
>> Shine an intense light beam on a small, very low-mass object. The object will
>> move, but light has no mass.
> Light has relativistic mass
But "relativistic mass" is not mass, it is ENERGY. The inappropriate name is an historical anachronism, a relic from before SR was well understood.
Tom Roberts from tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net posted Sun, 07 Oct 2012
22:11:04 -0500
> But "relativistic mass" is not mass, it is ENERGY. The inappropriate
> name is an historical anachronism, a relic from before SR was well
> understood.
> Tom Roberts
But does not have any form of energy equivalent mass ?
-- Poutnik
Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster, if combined
with no quoting by some GG users.
> On 9/28/2012 3:14 AM, Y wrote:
>> Regarding p=mv
>> "Momentum" although a form of motion, is clearly something quite
>> different to motion itself. Momentum is not only a form of motion, it
>> is also the the impetus of an object that can be transferred to other
>> objects. Motion alone is not necessarily a quantity that is conserved
>> or transferable. With motion, what we observe is an object moving
>> through space. There are two more observations which can be made to
>> qualify this moving thing. The first thing is that the object has
>> mass, the second thing is that the object has moved by a distance or
>> length of space.
> What do you think "motion" means to a physicist?
Something you do not need to have a collision ?
Something that is absent in chemistry ?
Why don't you make like a tree, Big Dog ?
Why don't you start analyzing your huge misgivings, and do something about it ?
> On Oct 7, 12:19 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 3:18 AM, Y wrote:
>>> The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
>>> wit.
>> Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
>> argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
>> with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
> Regardless, "time" does not move things.
> -y
That's not what I asked.
Are you assuming that the only putative candidates for what might be moving things are massive things and time?
Are there not other possibilities you haven't considered?
> On Oct 7, 12:19 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 3:18 AM, Y wrote:
>>> The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
>>> wit.
>> Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
>> argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
>> with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
> mass ?
>>>>> The only thing that can move matter are other things with mass you nit
>>>>> wit.
>>>> Do you base that statement (which is wrong) on the back of some
>>>> argument, or is it simply the case that in every case you're familiar
>>>> with that statement is true and therefore you assume it is true in general?
>>> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
>>> mass ?
>>> -y
>> Taking literally, only force can start moving things
>> and it does not have mass. :-)
> Bollocks. Force is "mass" x acceleration.
This is a common mistake, confusing cause and effect.
Force is the cause, acceleration the effect. The ratio of the two is this thing we label mass.
It is not the case that the force IS the acceleration (scaled by mass). It *produces* the acceleration.
The equal sign in F=ma indicates the NUMERICAL equivalence of the size of the cause and the size of the effect (scaled by mass). It does not mean "IS THE SAME AS".
The same mistake is often made in E=mc^2, where people say this means that energy is mass and mass is energy. It does not mean that at all. It means that energy can be *converted* to mass and mass *converted* to energy, and the equality tells you *how much* of one you get from the other.
> On Oct 8, 1:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 10/7/12 10/7/12 12:46 AM, Y wrote:
>>> Ok.. name me one thing that can move something which does not have
>>> mass ?
>> Shine an intense light beam on a small, very low-mass object. The object will
>> move, but light has no mass.
>> Do not confuse this with the cheap radiometers sold in museum
>> shops. They have insufficient vacuum and it is differential
>> heating of the air inside that makes them rotate. But a radiometer
>> with good vacuum does rotate properly due to the momentum
>> transferred to its blades by the light.
>> Tom Roberts
> Light has relativistic mass you nit wit.
"Relativistic mass" is nothing more than energy, scaled by a number, and it is not a mass as that term is presently understood. The ONLY reason the term was ever invented was to make a bridge concept that could connect to an analogous role from classical physics.
I'm sorry that you have read crap and drawn incorrect conclusions from the crap you've read.
> Tom Roberts from tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net posted Sun, 07 Oct 2012
> 22:11:04 -0500
>> "relativistic mass" is not mass, it is ENERGY.
> But does not have any form of energy equivalent mass ?
But "equivalent" is not the same as "is".
Start from the definitions:
An object's energy in a given inertial frame is the time component
of its 4-momentum projected onto the frame's coordinates.
An object's mass is the norm of its 4-momentum. (No need to mention
any frame, as this is invariant.)
The "equivalence of mass and energy" comes from the fact that in an object's rest frame these two quantities have the same value (historically they used different units, but in units with c=1 that is not the case).
For instance, if one has a closed system consisting of several constituents moving around inside, the 4-momentum of the system is the sum of the 4-momenta of its constituents. In the rest frame of the system, the mass of the system equals the energy of the system, which is the sum of the energies of its constituents, and the energy of each constituent is the same as its "relativistic mass" in this frame.
But the context of my remarks was light, which is not bound in a closed system. So this "equivalence" does not apply. Nor does it apply to a free particle. It ONLY applies to the constituents of a bound system, where the energy of each constituent contributes to the mass of the system.
> So you have a clear understanding of preceding and following in a sequence.
> So let's suppose A is observed to precede B.
> Let's also suppose that A is observed to precede C, and we also can see
> that B precedes C.
> Then we have a clear sequence of A --> B --> C.
> Now, we can certainly say that there is then SOME quality which is
> greater between A and C than it is between A and B.
> Do you agree with that?
> And we can also suppose that there are certain REPEATING sequences that
> we can observe
> A precedes B, and then there is another instance of the same thing
> happening again, so that A is observed to precede B again.
> So we can say that there is SOME quality that is the same in both
> instances of A --> B
> JT from jonas.thornv...@gmail.com
> posted Sat, 6 Oct 2012 22:53:31 -0700 (PDT)
> > On 4 Okt, 14:19, Y <yanar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3 Oct, 17:21, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Not necessarily. An event can be defined as having a beginning and an
> > > end, sure.. The question is, what is this stuff between a beginning
> > > and an end ? In a purely natural sense, I think that there is motion
> > > from the beginning to the end of an event.
> If end and beginning of the event have the same space coordinates,
> and if these are kept constant also during the event,
> then there is no motion.
> Motion is by definition related to change of space coordinates.
> > The stuff between is oscillation and motion, on either the observer
> > side or on the event side.
> > > In terms of measurement, I
> > > could arbitrarily call this duration a 'time', but this would not be
> > > talking with reference to any natural thing. If anything I have said
> > > to date regarding time best alludes to my point of view, it is in this
> > > paragraph.
> > There possibly could be a type of oscillation that is not affected by
> > either inertial or gravitation, that could be used for universal time.
> > > -y
> --
> Poutnik
> Current way of spaced quoting by GoogleGroups is disaster,
> if combined with no quoting by some GG users.
Oh there is motion at the subatomic level even if you do not admit
that the electrons around the nucleus actually moving, any radiation
given from a particle system is basicly aether waves.
